swapcard_update_webhook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions updating but omits any side effects (e.g., potential for breaking an existing integration), idempotency semantics, or whether fields not mentioned (like webhookId) are untouched or reset. This is a mutation tool, so more disclosure of destructive potential or preconditions would be expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary verbiage. It front-loads the action ('Update') and the core targets ('endpoint or event types'), which is efficient. However, it could have added critical caveats (e.g., 'This does not update other fields') in the same concise style, so it misses a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too thin. It does not explain the update semantics: whether omitted parameters are left unchanged or reset, whether endpoints must be a valid URL, or what the response contains. This leaves the agent to guess critical behavioral aspects, making the description inadequate for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only vaguely refers to 'endpoint or event types.' It does not explain that webhookId identifies the resource, nor does it describe the format or allowed values for endpoint or hooks. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, focusing on two of three parameters without naming them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('webhook subscription'), and specifies the exact aspects that can be updated ('endpoint or event types'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swapcard_create_webhook and swapcard_delete_webhook, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that creation or deletion is handled by sibling tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or scenarios where updating would be inappropriate. The context is entirely implicit from the name and phrase 'existing webhook subscription.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.